7 ms·

Edit: before you downvote, these are reasons I’ve read/heard. They do not represent my own views. 1. This is an mRNA vaccine and is the first of it's kind to b

Edit: before you downvote, these are reasons I’ve read/heard. They do not represent my own views. 1. This is an mRNA vaccine and is the first of it's kind to be widely offered. This appears to be different than the rest of the vaccines out there for other illnesses. 2. There isn't a perceived benefit for many people: the vast majority of people won't get sick or be impacted in any way. 3. It apparently doesn't stop people from getting or becoming transmissions vectors. So, if you get the vaccine and it makes you less sick, then you may take "riskier" actions than if you were to get it and actually have some symptoms. (IOW, why take it?) 4. Some people can't take it due to allergy concerns? This is just what I've found in my online research.

zwily 6y ago
Regarding point 3 - isn’t it just that they haven’t studied that yet? The trials for the mRNA vaccines did not test for asymptomatic carriers, so they don’t know if it prevents transmission.
- nvahalik 6y ago
  Not sure about the testing, but as someone else pointed out to me, if you touch someone with dirty gloves, dirt will rub off. I am not sure if asymptomatic transmission has been confirmed or not. I kept hearing that if you didn't have symptoms then you couldn't transfer it, but given the uptick in cases, it wouldn't seem like that is the case.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    > I am not sure if asymptomatic transmission has been confirmed or not. It's been confirmed, from early experience e.g. with the Diamond Princess and USS Theodore Roosevelt. It seems to be rare. But paucisymptomatic transmission -- transmission before symptoms have manifested in people who will eventually be symptomatic -- is much less rare. So just quarantining people with symptoms doesn't work.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > But paucisymptomatic transmission – transmission before symptoms have manifested in people who will eventually be symptomatic – is much less rare. The definition you give is for presymptomatic not paucisymptomatic (the latter is basically having trivial/mild symptoms that don’t raise complaints), but transmission in both cases is a significant risk, much more so than true asymptomatic transmission.
      - mlyle 6y ago
        Yes, sorry for eliding this.
deeringc 6y ago
> 3. It apparently doesn't stop people from getting or becoming transmissions vectors. So, if you get the vaccine and it makes you less sick, then you may take "riskier" actions than if you were to get it and actually have some symptoms. (IOW, why take it?) From what I've seen this is not established at all. They are careful to say that they don't have conclusive proof that the people who were in their study were not ever contagious - but that doesn't mean that they were contagious either. They have simply called out that further studies will be needed before we can say whether and to what degree.
- jetrink 6y ago
  It's also not binary. Even if a vaccine is not 100% effective at preventing asymptomatic disease and transmission, it's likely to have some effect.
asutekku 6y ago
And, of course the #1 reasons even in tech circles: ”BILL GATES IS GOING TO MICROCHIP AS ALL” or ”Covid is just a flu, it’s not going to affect me”
- vmception 6y ago
  There are like 5 vaccines Doesn't that concern ironically mean we should take the Russian one? Bill Gates would only pollute the Moderna one, if those theories factored in geopolitics at all.
- tux1968 6y ago
  Please don't set up strawmen just to knock them down. It's too easy to cast everyone who has some rational scepticism as nutjob's, but that just alienates those who could otherwise be persuaded by civil discourse.
  - asutekku 6y ago
    I'm not setting strawmen, this is my actual experience. Tech is not immune to this kind of conspiracies.
    - tux1968 6y ago
      There's a difference between having seen examples of it, and of it being pervasive and a dominant force. All too often, we attack the weakest arguments of our opponents and ignore the more sane opposition. There's good reason to ignore the nutjobs and focus on the rational opposition, steel-manning our foe so to speak. It makes our thinking more clear and our arguments stronger. Even bothering to oppose the insane elements by definition does not convince anyone of anything, since no sane person on either side agrees with the insanity. All it does is momentarily make us feel superior, but it's a fleeting and counterproductive endeavour.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 6y ago
  You do yourself a disservice when you mock people who hold opposite viewpoints.
kylebenzle 6y ago
People keep forgetting that the vast majority of people under 45 that get in never have any idea that even had it and over 97% of deaths are people over 45.
- setpatchaddress 6y ago
  Some of us are over 45. Some of us have regular contact with people over 45. Some of us know people who've died of COVID who are under 45.
  - choward 6y ago
    Not trying to be snarky, but just curious: do you know anyone under 45 who has died from it?
    - deathanatos 6y ago
      I know someone who is under 45 who got it & had to be put on a ventilator. It was close, and thankfully, she made it. (I also know someone else under 45 who got it, and was symptomatic.)
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  Yes. Fuck all those guys over 45. How dare they continue living.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    In reality it's more like over 80. Yes the incidence of severe cases does go up with age, but it's the very elderly who are most at risk. I'm 54, I had it, and it was a couple of days of slight nasal congestion and a very mild sore throat. If it had been any other year I wouldn't have paid it any mind at all and would have probably attributed it to the dry winter air.
    - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
thaumaturgy 6y ago
1. mRNA technology has been in varying phases of human trials since 2013. The trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna were absolutely massive compared to normal study sizes. While this will be the first mass-distribution vaccine using the technology, it's not untested. Further, the results so far suggest it's far more effective than the Oxford vaccine. 2. It's really curious to see people saying, on the one hand, that they're uncertain about a vaccine because of some unexpected long-term impacts, and then saying on the other hand that they're unconcerned about unexpected long-term impacts from a brand new and as-yet-poorly-understood disease. There are still a lot of question marks about covid-19 and researchers are still discovering far more "quiet" impacts in apparently healthy individuals, including blood clots and pericarditis. 2a. Overall though I'm in favor of anybody avoiding this vaccine that wishes to. The disease would continue to disproportionately affect the populations of people who believe it's a hoax, or believe it's not a serious health risk, or believe it's a conspiracy, or believe the vaccine is a conspiracy, or believe that vaccines in general are conspiracies -- and we could do with fewer of those people. 3. As two other people have already pointed out, the researchers have only been cautious about not stating something that they don't know to be factual. It's funny: when researchers are cautious, people read too much into it and draw bad conclusions, and that leads to the kinds of research press releases that other people then criticize for making statements unsupported by evidence. Researchers have repeatedly stated in various media that there's no reason for them to expect people to be infectious after taking the vaccine, they merely haven't tested for this specifically. 4. The people they're talking about here are the sort that need to carry an epi-pen with them wherever they go. If you are one of those people, then yes, at this time there's an uncertain amount of risk associated with these vaccines. The situation is still developing and there should be better information available as the vaccines are distributed.
- Phlogistique 6y ago
  Hi, Your post is insightful, but it could really do without the inflammatory death-wishing in 2a.
  - thaumaturgy 6y ago
    I appreciate your direct but non-confrontational reply. FWIW I'm quite carefully staying behind the line of "death-wishing", in "it is what it is" territory. Multiple social issues throughout 2020 have together completely exhausted my usual compassion and optimism towards people. 300,000 Americans and 1.6 million people worldwide are dead but many millions more still don't see this as a public health emergency. Moreover, beleaguered medical workers have been harassed everywhere online and fist fights and other assaults have been reported across the country that were started by wearing a mask. And then there's the cyclopsian intersection in the venn diagram of "people who are aggressively anti-mask" and "people who are unconcerned with or even violently opposed to the health and safety of anybody outside their tribe". From an entirely pragmatic standpoint, the freedom to choose one's own destiny is arguably the most important human right. All of the information necessary to protect yourself and those around you from this disease is now widely available. Most people who wish to minimize their risk of exposure can do so, with the notable exception of the many medical workers who have been, not asked, but demanded, to put themselves at risk in the service of people who believe those same medical workers are part of some vast conspiracy. So, I'm asking honestly here, to you or whoever else: convince me to care about the plight of terrible people.

zwily 6y ago

Regarding point 3 - isn’t it just that they haven’t studied that yet? The trials for the mRNA vaccines did not test for asymptomatic carriers, so they don’t know if it prevents transmission.

nvahalik 6y ago
Not sure about the testing, but as someone else pointed out to me, if you touch someone with dirty gloves, dirt will rub off. I am not sure if asymptomatic transmission has been confirmed or not. I kept hearing that if you didn't have symptoms then you couldn't transfer it, but given the uptick in cases, it wouldn't seem like that is the case.
- mlyle 6y ago
  > I am not sure if asymptomatic transmission has been confirmed or not. It's been confirmed, from early experience e.g. with the Diamond Princess and USS Theodore Roosevelt. It seems to be rare. But paucisymptomatic transmission -- transmission before symptoms have manifested in people who will eventually be symptomatic -- is much less rare. So just quarantining people with symptoms doesn't work.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > But paucisymptomatic transmission – transmission before symptoms have manifested in people who will eventually be symptomatic – is much less rare. The definition you give is for presymptomatic not paucisymptomatic (the latter is basically having trivial/mild symptoms that don’t raise complaints), but transmission in both cases is a significant risk, much more so than true asymptomatic transmission.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      Yes, sorry for eliding this.

deeringc 6y ago

> 3. It apparently doesn't stop people from getting or becoming transmissions vectors. So, if you get the vaccine and it makes you less sick, then you may take "riskier" actions than if you were to get it and actually have some symptoms. (IOW, why take it?) From what I've seen this is not established at all. They are careful to say that they don't have conclusive proof that the people who were in their study were not ever contagious - but that doesn't mean that they were contagious either. They have simply called out that further studies will be needed before we can say whether and to what degree.

jetrink 6y ago
It's also not binary. Even if a vaccine is not 100% effective at preventing asymptomatic disease and transmission, it's likely to have some effect.

asutekku 6y ago

And, of course the #1 reasons even in tech circles: ”BILL GATES IS GOING TO MICROCHIP AS ALL” or ”Covid is just a flu, it’s not going to affect me”

vmception 6y ago
There are like 5 vaccines Doesn't that concern ironically mean we should take the Russian one? Bill Gates would only pollute the Moderna one, if those theories factored in geopolitics at all.
tux1968 6y ago
Please don't set up strawmen just to knock them down. It's too easy to cast everyone who has some rational scepticism as nutjob's, but that just alienates those who could otherwise be persuaded by civil discourse.
- asutekku 6y ago
  I'm not setting strawmen, this is my actual experience. Tech is not immune to this kind of conspiracies.
  - tux1968 6y ago
    There's a difference between having seen examples of it, and of it being pervasive and a dominant force. All too often, we attack the weakest arguments of our opponents and ignore the more sane opposition. There's good reason to ignore the nutjobs and focus on the rational opposition, steel-manning our foe so to speak. It makes our thinking more clear and our arguments stronger. Even bothering to oppose the insane elements by definition does not convince anyone of anything, since no sane person on either side agrees with the insanity. All it does is momentarily make us feel superior, but it's a fleeting and counterproductive endeavour.
ad404b8a372f2b9 6y ago
You do yourself a disservice when you mock people who hold opposite viewpoints.

kylebenzle 6y ago

People keep forgetting that the vast majority of people under 45 that get in never have any idea that even had it and over 97% of deaths are people over 45.

setpatchaddress 6y ago
Some of us are over 45. Some of us have regular contact with people over 45. Some of us know people who've died of COVID who are under 45.
- choward 6y ago
  Not trying to be snarky, but just curious: do you know anyone under 45 who has died from it?
  - deathanatos 6y ago
    I know someone who is under 45 who got it & had to be put on a ventilator. It was close, and thankfully, she made it. (I also know someone else under 45 who got it, and was symptomatic.)
NikolaeVarius 6y ago
Yes. Fuck all those guys over 45. How dare they continue living.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  In reality it's more like over 80. Yes the incidence of severe cases does go up with age, but it's the very elderly who are most at risk. I'm 54, I had it, and it was a couple of days of slight nasal congestion and a very mild sore throat. If it had been any other year I wouldn't have paid it any mind at all and would have probably attributed it to the dry winter air.
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago

thaumaturgy 6y ago

1. mRNA technology has been in varying phases of human trials since 2013. The trials conducted by Pfizer and Moderna were absolutely massive compared to normal study sizes. While this will be the first mass-distribution vaccine using the technology, it's not untested. Further, the results so far suggest it's far more effective than the Oxford vaccine. 2. It's really curious to see people saying, on the one hand, that they're uncertain about a vaccine because of some unexpected long-term impacts, and then saying on the other hand that they're unconcerned about unexpected long-term impacts from a brand new and as-yet-poorly-understood disease. There are still a lot of question marks about covid-19 and researchers are still discovering far more "quiet" impacts in apparently healthy individuals, including blood clots and pericarditis. 2a. Overall though I'm in favor of anybody avoiding this vaccine that wishes to. The disease would continue to disproportionately affect the populations of people who believe it's a hoax, or believe it's not a serious health risk, or believe it's a conspiracy, or believe the vaccine is a conspiracy, or believe that vaccines in general are conspiracies -- and we could do with fewer of those people. 3. As two other people have already pointed out, the researchers have only been cautious about not stating something that they don't know to be factual. It's funny: when researchers are cautious, people read too much into it and draw bad conclusions, and that leads to the kinds of research press releases that other people then criticize for making statements unsupported by evidence. Researchers have repeatedly stated in various media that there's no reason for them to expect people to be infectious after taking the vaccine, they merely haven't tested for this specifically. 4. The people they're talking about here are the sort that need to carry an epi-pen with them wherever they go. If you are one of those people, then yes, at this time there's an uncertain amount of risk associated with these vaccines. The situation is still developing and there should be better information available as the vaccines are distributed.

Phlogistique 6y ago
Hi, Your post is insightful, but it could really do without the inflammatory death-wishing in 2a.
- thaumaturgy 6y ago
  I appreciate your direct but non-confrontational reply. FWIW I'm quite carefully staying behind the line of "death-wishing", in "it is what it is" territory. Multiple social issues throughout 2020 have together completely exhausted my usual compassion and optimism towards people. 300,000 Americans and 1.6 million people worldwide are dead but many millions more still don't see this as a public health emergency. Moreover, beleaguered medical workers have been harassed everywhere online and fist fights and other assaults have been reported across the country that were started by wearing a mask. And then there's the cyclopsian intersection in the venn diagram of "people who are aggressively anti-mask" and "people who are unconcerned with or even violently opposed to the health and safety of anybody outside their tribe". From an entirely pragmatic standpoint, the freedom to choose one's own destiny is arguably the most important human right. All of the information necessary to protect yourself and those around you from this disease is now widely available. Most people who wish to minimize their risk of exposure can do so, with the notable exception of the many medical workers who have been, not asked, but demanded, to put themselves at risk in the service of people who believe those same medical workers are part of some vast conspiracy. So, I'm asking honestly here, to you or whoever else: convince me to care about the plight of terrible people.